Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rtoz writes with this snippet from the BBC: "EU member states have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian crude oil to put pressure on the country over its nuclear programme. ... The US, which recently imposed fresh sanctions on Iran, welcomed the news. ... The Iranian state gets more than half of its revenue through the export of crude oil, says the BBC's James Reynolds. If Europe does stop buying, Iran will have to turn to countries in Asia to replace its lost trade, who will demand a discount, he adds."

Hilariously, this is exactly what happened in Sudan. West imposed sanctions expecting unfriendly government to fold in expedient manner as such governments did many times before. Suddenly China showed up in Sudan money in hand and now Sudan is selling all of its oil to China rather then to West as it did before, and pretty much entire oil industry is in the hands of Chinese.

Apparently this lesson has not been learned yet. Strange, considering that when Libyan oil started to go into Chinese direction, both E

You mean Sudan that has now been split off into two countries, the new one being south-sudan which is now more free then before from the north-muslim and Iran backed mass murderers?

Sorta like a not perfect but better then before result of the embargo?

Gosh, as an example of why embargo's don't work a embargo that gave millions a change to create their own country with a better future.... why not show how the storming of the Bastille did nothing to get rid of the corrupt king. How the US decleration of dependence did not result in indepedence?

You should stop drinking from the tap of wonderful Western propaganda and read on what's actually happening - because you're regurgitating hilarious amounts of bullshit that has been fed to you. West isn't half happy (and for a reason) about what happened in Sudan. Sudanese had their nice post-independence slaughterfest, these are dime-a-dosen in African countries who's borders were drawn by colonialists and disregarded all cultural and ethnic borders.Chinese came with their non-interventionist doctrine. They do it everywhere right now, "we don't care about your politics, as long as you let us be your preferred trading partner you can rape, slaughter and pillage each other all you want".

You see, China, they don't care what colors will be flown on the flag pole. As long as they keep their stakes in oil industry (which they now own lock, stock and bolt) and remain preferential trading partners, they couldn't care less who slaughters who, and what do butchers and victims choose to call themselves. That's the major ideological difference between China and West, and why China is expanding its influence in Africa so fast while Western influence in there is going down.And for the record, West doesn't really care about these slaughters either, until it's their dictator and favored tribe that start getting killed. Chinese on the other hand just deal with everyone, as they do not have the long colonial history and baggage associated with it and don't care about ideology of locals.

If you seriously believe that splitting Sudan is for "creating your own country with a better future", I have land on the moon to sell you. Reality is, it's going to be another post-colonialist independence dictatorial shit hole split along tribal lines like dozens of other countries that went down that path ended up. There is no culture of democracy in Africa - but there is a long culture of colonialism, slavery and tribal warfare. And once you understand this and stop looking at African countries like you look at Western ones, a lot of things in there make actual sense without needing to listen to talking heads trying to shove bullshit down your throat about "what you should think is happening there".

Excuse me, but what the f...? Israel isn't exactly cleanest white dove on human rights itself, and opening an embassy in Jerusalem, which is essentially a home city for three extremely fanatical religions is somehow a show of respect for human rights in their own home country rather then a religious statement to their own fanatics?

Reality check: when your enemy is tribal militias and most of your country is rural, you either fight them back on their own terms, or you lose the war and get raped anyway. Histo

Strange, considering that when Libyan oil started to go into Chinese direction, both EU and US got scared shitless and bombed the country into stone age.

Is this what passes for intelligent commentary these days?

1) Libya was not bombed into the stone age. The Ghaddafi regime lost some tanks, artillery, choppers and a few buildings were hit in the process as well.2) Libya was free to sell its oil to whomever it wanted before the Ghaddafi regime change, and it is so now.

1. Of course infrastructure is bombed. You defeat someone by destroying their ability to coordinate. Not sure why this is news.2. You're gonna need some proof for that. I looked for your quote, and couldn't find anything. And yes, I was looking for the original French.

China not a threat? I would call BS. They have been a major threat to the US since they found they are good at wars by proxy. The Korean war was a stalemate. The Vietnam conflict was an easy victory for them. Other places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries where insurgents "mysteriously" get ammo and explosives from somewhere also show this.

Look how they killed the solar industry in the US. Six months ago,/. had the articles about how sites belonging to energy companies were being hacked. Then a few months ago came the solar panel dumping for less than the cost of making them. Now we are sans a complete industry because of this, and MORE dependent on oil/gas while they are happily building the latest, safest nuclear reactors and getting off of coal.

Look how they are securing rare earths and other resources.

China is smart, and extremely brutal. They know that a couple shipments of C4 that mysteriously wind up in a bunch of insurgent hands go a lot further than sending PLA troops in a region. This is how they can win a battle in a theater of conflict without a single member of the Han race ever firing a shot.

China is doing a damn good job at keeping the US stuck on fighting in shithole countries to keep the foreign oil flowing while they are going to a post oil economy.

Let's be clear, China didn't do anything alone. They whipped the slaves, the slaves were industrious, we bought the fruits of their industry. With few exceptions the Chinese are working in conditions of one sort or another which would be illegal here, even if they are not literal slaves literally being whipped. I would imagine that happens less in Solar production and more in cheap crap consumer goods.

As long as we on one hand pass laws which claim to protect the rights of the laborer and on the other hand continue to purchase goods from countries which do not respect any such rights we are continuing to fund our own devastation through the application of hypocrisy.

We choose to purchase goods from China, both at the personal and national level. What effect did you think that would have?

Why do you think the nation of Israel was created? You need oil to make war at this point in history.

The British turned against the Jews in 1939 and sided with the Arabs specifically to continue the flow of oil to their country during WW2. I don't think the creation of a Jewish state and oil have any real connection. Walter Rothschild (a zionist Jew) was the one behind the creation of a Jewish state, and it was presented under the auspice of having a territory on the east side of the mediterranean to facilitate troop movements to India in case they began to lose the Raj. Unfortunately for them they had to sell the Indians their freedom to stay in WW2.

Q.E.D. Israel (the Jews there, anyways) never had any bearing or leverage on oil in the region.

disclaimer: I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda, I'm just trying to point out that this line of thought is wrong

I think you are a bit confused. This embargo will not produce regime change in Iran. It will not "jack up prices at the pump" in the US, either. Generally speaking, it will have no good/desirable effects (or at least, that's what I believe).

What it will do is make oil more expensive for the EU, less so for China and consolidate the Iran regime by means of strengthening the (already strong) public perception of the US as an aggressor state.

Iran 'might' be working on a nuclear bomb and the EU wants to put an embargo on them.the USA, Russia, India, China, Pakistan and Israel all HAVE nuclear bombs and the EU is happily trading and talking with them.

Conclusion:

Once Iran finishes it's research the EU and Iran will be Best Friends Forever.

It's amusing how some people still think we went into Iraq because S. Hussein was an evil dictator, or that we helped get rid of M. Khadafi for the same reason. The popular media seem resistant to portray these things for what they are: taking control of Third World petroleum industries. Iran is the last redoubt in the middle east not yet in bed with or controlled by international petroleum mobsters. Venezuela is the last in the western hemisphere, and it is no coincidence at all that H. Chavez is demonized as an evil dictator as well. It is an industrial pattern every bit as stereotyped as any software design pattern, and it works just as well.

Yes, we are headed for another decade of perpetual war for perpetual peace in order that the mobsters who rule the First World can take control of small nations' wealth and resources. For the rubes, it's all about saving the world from Iran's evil dictators having a few nukes. Suckers.

The US is pretty good at conventional warfare, it's the guerilla/urban/CT stuff they suck at, because in those types it's hard to win without becoming as bad as the enemy, and the US citizens don't want that (buncha pansies, right?).

I agree that they're not "good" on guerilla/urban/CT stuff. Like you said, nobody can really win without being bad themselves.

But how can you say they're still good on conventional warfare? They certainly used to be, but recently (i.e. post-Vietnam) I can't say they've ever been tested against an organized and relatively modern military. Iraq? The Taliban in Afghanistan?

The closest they came were in Serbia. They didn't do too well there; rather preferred bombing mostly from Italian bases. They simply wo

Afghanistan is about as far as possible from conventional (WW2-style) warfare. Not that I think a conflict with Iran is a good idea, but if there were such a conflict Iran's sad little speedboats and V2-style drones would be wiped out pretty quick. Their best bet would be to bog down the US in another guerilla-combat quagmire.

Don't worry, President Gingrich won't need to wait for them to blockade anything. He'll just say "Well, they're developing nukes," deliver a "They're going to nuke us all!!!!!" scare speech to the public, and ask for the money for the war from Congress (knowing the Democrats will be too cowardly to say no). And we'll be right back in it--guaranteeing him 4-8 years of passing totalitarian legislation under the guise of "Don't worry. These are just wartime powers."

We ban crude oil imports from Iran, and then buy them indirectly from Russia. As we already do. Good thing we aren't in a middle of an economic crysis and can tolerate again an increase in fuel prices. Oh wait...

All they need is to withdraw from the NPT. Iran has a perfect right to develop nuclear weapons, and a very plausible reason of deterring foreign invasion, given what happened to Iraq. Why pretend not to have a nuclear program when nobody believes you? At least they could take the "no comment" approach that Israel has.

It would be Israel, and the following day the US would put out a statement saying that they didn't know about the bombing plans (lie) but they support it (truth). The actual airplanes which drop the bombs might not have Israeli markings, as they didn't then Libya got nailed, but no doubt it would be Israel.

Because they don't want to get bombed the day after making the announcement. As it is, they're pretty close to getting bombed anyway.

It's cute to talk about the "right" to make nukes, but at the end of the day that's meaningless rhetoric. The point is that the current policy of the people who run the free world, is that only stable democracies are tolerated to have nukes. Iran is neither stable nor a democracy, so the world will not tolerate it having nukes. Well, I mean, the world doesn't want to tolerate

Just like they claim to be a peaceful country, citing the fact they've not invaded a foreign country in their history, whilst funding entire proxy armies in countries like Lebanon that have ousted the legitimate government and military so that Iran can attack their arch foe Israel by proxy.

Iran doesn't do direct, because it knows it can't win in direct confrontation. It relies on doing things subversive

Because Islam forbids to create such weapons (their words, not mine), maybe because they are creating it for offensive means, like punishing Israel or Western infidels for their existence. Could be a lot of things.

World somehow doesn't have problem with Pakistan having nukes, never mind to their shaky problems (and nice support for Taliban in their several military wings). So maybe pissing West off thousand times, oppressing inner opposition would have something to do with a fact that nobody - even Russia -

Actually from what i have read. That is true with one exception. The one exception is a new one. Is that during all out war nukes are tolerable.
from Aljazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/20121212653433219.html [aljazeera.com]
In the 1980s, the revolutionary leaders of the new Islamic Republic of Iran swore off weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as un-Islamic. During the course of the war, however, Saddam Hussein's Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, spurring Ayatollah Khomeini to reverse his position and restart the country's chemical weapons programme. In the process, Khomeini established the philosophical foundation for a key principle within the Islamic Republic known as "maslahat-e nizam" or "expediency of the system", by which the needs of the Islamic Republic as a political institution might trump even Islamic law.
This suggests that Iran's commitments not to develop WMD in the early 1980s carried an implicit understanding that the religious prohibition on such weapons does not necessarily apply in a state of war.
So far, Tehran's leaders have declared that they have no interest in nuclear weapons, citing the same religious opposition as before. The US intelligence community has repeatedly assessed that if Iran wanted to develop atomic bombs, it has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to do so. Then why hasn't Iran put its technical know-how to use building up a nuclear arsenal? Experts widely agree that Tehran has yet to form a consensus in favour of actually building the bomb, and in the absence of such a consensus prefers merely to keep the option open for the future.
Whether or not Iran builds a nuclear weapon, then, will be based on Tehran's cost-benefit calculation. Fundamentally, the future of Iran's nuclear programme will be decided within the context of Iran's larger foreign policy strategy, which Iran's leaders have characterised as a policy of responding to pressure with pressure. Therefore, the easiest way for Iran to arrive at a consensus in favour of building nuclear weapons would be in response to a provocation from the West.

The NPT is a deal that gives a signatory access to nuclear technology in exchange for the promise not to develop weapons. Since Iran doesn't not have a nuclear weapon program, it is not in their interest to withdraw, since they would then no longer be able to buy fuel, advice or technology from a NPT member.

As for the consequence of a withdrawal: In theory, they could withdraw and do whatever they wanted, but that assumes that the security council follows international law. Remember India ? They didn't sign

Look at what happened to Iraq when they bluffed and postured about (still) having a nuclear program, refused access to inspectors, that sort of thing.

You mean the Iraq where the weapon inspectors said 'no, Iraq doesn't have WMDs' but Colin Powell said 'Iraq does so have WMDs, I have pictures of these kebab vans, sorry, chemical weapons vans' and... uh... they didn't?

BTW, didn't the claims of Iraqui WMDs come from an Iranian agent because Iran wanted Bush to invade and get rid of Saddam Hussein and put their friends in power?

Well, it is not that clear and cut shenanigans. Hussein *had* chemical and biological WMDs. Hussein had plans for nukes. These - and the fact that he used it against it's own nation and enemy in Iran's war - were reasons for sanctions. Which in the end were very effective, because it pushed Hussein to liquidate his WMD program (yes, they also did lot of harm to common crowd, I know). That's a nice and small side note everyone rush to forget. It was also a reason which gave leaders of the world benefit of doubt here.

So did Bush and co knew it is very high propability that weapons are gone? I bet they knew. CIA knew this. Military knew this. But still they decided to act? My guess - spending government money on military contracts and contractors. But I think they didn't thought this trough, and they never got friends they wanted to be installed as leaders of "great Iraqi nation".

I distinctly remember the news reports from that time. UN inspectors were being denied access to numerous facilities, or at least delayed long enough for Hussein to hide anything. If he didn't have any WMD's, he sure as hell wanted people to think he did.

That was other reason for leaders to be suspicious. Hussein overplayed his hand with UN, that made lot of us very doubtful. However, as I remember for lot of us US rush to the war was unpleasantly surprising even with all that information.

I do too. When Colin Powell was saying 'Look, I have pictures of Saddam Hussein's WMDs', the actual weapons inspectors who had actually been looking for them on the ground in Iraq were saying 'uh, he doesn't have any'.

So was in Brazil. You can't just send your spies to look at everything in every country witht he guise of working for the UN. After both sides agreed on a "looking" methodology, the inspectors were permited in. In both of those countries.

When the US invaded Iraq, the UN inspectors had access to all the countries infrastructure.

Errr, which part of "global recession" you don't get it? There is not that much demand for oil, and those who demand require solid cuts of prices. Also never mind that lot of these countries are actually self-sufficient in oil needs too.

Also never mind that lot of these countries are actually self-sufficient in oil needs too.

Can you name a single EU country that is self-sufficient in oil? EU is a net importer, it has to buy on the world market, restricting supply by refusing to buy from one country means that the price goes up (unless other suppliers have the motivation and resources to increase supply at no cost, which seems doubtful in this case).

The UK is a net oil importer, and has been since around 2004. Output peaked in 1999 and has been declining since. ("The rate of decline has ranged from 6% to 17%, year-on-year.... The UK produced an average of 2.72 million barrels a day (mbpd) in 1999, hitting a high of 3.1 mbpd in August. But by June 2005 this had fallen to 1.7 mbpd, a drop of 34%.") Is UK oil output running on empty? [bbc.co.uk])

Norway

Norway is not in the EU. It is a net oil exporter but exports have been declining since 1993. see Oil_production_Norwegian_North_Sea.png [wikipedia.org] and oil-production-norway.gif [energyinsights.net]. They hit peak oil in 2001, so reversal of this decline seems unlikely unless they can discover and bring big new fields online. (They will undoubtedly bring more small fields online, the issue is whether this will be enough to compensate for decline in the existing fields) Only 12% of European oil comes from Norway, and they do not have the production capacity to increase this significantly.

"...I mean, they should know that sanctions do not work, never have and more than probably never will."

Well, they have, and can. I agree sometimes they're a waste of time, but in this particular case there is some hope.

You see, citizens rise up when their standard of living becomes unbearable, we've seen more of this in recent years, and it's no coincidence that the arab spring et al has happened at a time of global turmoil - the decrease in quality of life and increase in unemployment caused by the current

You see, citizens rise up when their standard of living becomes unbearable

Yes, they do. And when their standard of living has become unbearable because of something another country has done to them, they come together and rise up against that other country, not their own government.

Sanctions are usually beneficial for repressive governments, because they provide an external enemy.

"Yes, they do. And when their standard of living has become unbearable because of something another country has done to them, they come together and rise up against that other country, not their own government."

Yes, if the populace is supportive of it's government in the first place. In Iran that's not the case, as previous demonstrations have shown.

There are strong sanctions against Syria too, but blaming those putting in place the sanctions clearly hasn't helped said leadership or emboldened the populatio

I don't agree with the way Iran's government thinks, but it seems clear that the US government, especially the Republicans, are spoiling for another pointless and costly war, so are pressurising Iran with punitive sanctions in order to make them take the first punch so that the US can justify it.

Even if Iran is developing a nuke, it isn't the job or right of the US to be world police. Why is it that the west can make nukes but not other countries?

Consider the issues with religious extremism in the Middle East, and compare that with our own issues with religious extremism during The Crusades.

Now, imagine that we had nukes back then. The world would have either been Christian or irradiated. This is why we're not happy about Iran, South Korea, Iraq etc having WMDs in this period of their civilisations' evolution; They need their Enlightenment first, and the Arab Spring is the start.

Religion still plays a significant part of their political climates, and a fundamentalist with their finger on a world-ending bomb is nobody's idea of a happy Christmas. Unfortunately, the only way we can try and stop these people from getting such cataclysmically lethal weaponry (short of turning the place to glass) is to stop buying their crap so they get really poor and have to end their nuclear programmes. Hey, it's better than sending our sons over to be maimed by a roadside bomb, right?

Another way to look at it is that the Middle East is ahead of the Western world: They've already been through their enlightenment and are coming out of the authoritarian, theocratic dark age that the West is now headed for. Maybe it all goes in cycles?

Another way to look at it is that the Middle East is ahead of the Western world: They've already been through their enlightenment and are coming out of the authoritarian, theocratic dark age that the West is now headed for.

The religious right in the US has been getting more vocal and agitated, with candidates like Rick Perry, Palin and Bachmann getting serious attention. Anti-islamic sentiment is clearly spreading. If things go down that path who's to say there won't be a Crusades 2.0?

At least out authoritarian overlords won't bomb the crap out of everyone because their imaginary sky friend said so; Nobody would be left to watch the adverts between X-Factor and TOWIE.

Of course these things go in cycles. Or more accurately, they shift from one medium to another. Previously we worshipped at the church of the bearded dude in the sky, now we worship at the church of the bald-headed dude with the polo-neck. The difference is that our new gods are corporeal, and don't tell us to blow up heath

Unfortunately, the only way we can try and stop these people from getting such cataclysmically lethal weaponry (short of turning the place to glass) is to stop buying their crap so they get really poor and have to end their nuclear programmes.

Errr, how sanctions are exactly pushing for war? Trading embargos are much less cruel tool, and more effective one (it destroyed Sadam, by the way). In fact, Republicans calling for blood for a year or so and call Obama pussy on Iran. They actually don't care about sanctions, they think it's never gonna work, they just want to go to Crusade and fulfill prophecies about Armageddon.

And no, please just stop right here about US and world police. US have done lot of things wrong, but with Iran I'm fully supporti

Errr, how sanctions are exactly pushing for war? Trading embargos are much less cruel tool, and more effective one (it destroyed Sadam, by the way)

Sorry, but no. The US military destroyed Saddam. All the sanctions did was keep Saddam from rebuilding his military and kill about million kids due to preventable diseases and make life for the general population absolutely miserable. Sure, the UN sanctions allowed for medicines, but Saddam skirted them, substituting banned goods in crates labeled "medicine". Saddam would be in power today if the US military had not acted. Sanctions don't work. They just torture the general population. See also N. Kor

Hahaha, theocratic monarchy... You clearly aren't from the UK. The "ruling" monarch has such important duties as welcoming foreign dignitaries, visiting poor people, and talking rubbish at Christmas. We're run by a parliament, and if the Queen ever decided that wasn't going to work out, dissolution of the monarchy would be instantaneous.

Think of the royal family of the UK as a tourist attraction, and something to talk about in the tabloid press, and you wouldn't be far wrong.

If you ignore the fact that about 80% of the laws are written in Brussels and rubber-stamped in Westminster. Parliament is about as relevant as the Queen these days; they both get to sign the laws, but they don't write them and haven't rejected one in decades.

The EU nations import 8.5 million barrels a day. USA: 13.5. Japan: 5.5. China: 4.5. South Korea: 2.5. Get *all* of those nations to ban Iran crude and you'll substantially affect Iranian prices for the worse (and prices within the embargoing nations for the worse, too). Just EU? Meh. EU plus USA? Still meh since in fact most of the current USA's imports come from the Americas. But EU, USA, Japan, SKorea? Now we're talking. As Iran goes further and further down the list of importing nations they start having to deal with shipping into smaller ports, into ports which can't take as much oil as quickly, etc. Less efficient transactions and less efficient shipping, and potentially for a lower base price because the countries agreeing to buy Iranian oil will have negotiating leverage.

In the mean time, it wouldn't be the worst thing for each of the potentially embargoing nations to figure out how to reduce the oil required for each unit of GDP, health, or any other metric of "goodness" that the nation uses. After all, an oil embargo hurts both trade partners, but reducing demand hurts the seller and improves conditions for the (former) buyer.

You are correct: if the supply of buyers can be restricted enough, then (from the Iranian perspective) there is a situation of decreased demand but level supply, which will cause short term effects of decreased exports and decreased purchase price. But in the longer term, an increased supply of cheap oil will benefit those nations that are willing to trade with Iran, leading to structural changes within those nations (larger ports, pipelines where possible etc.) Look at this graph of oil use per capita [ezimages.net] - cl

In fact a few years back(not sure if this is still in effect), Iran essentially asked Japan to pay in yen [bloomberg.com](which of course in hindsight seems incredibly wise, as the yen has almost doubled in value since then), one of the first really big oil contracts to be denominated in a currency other than dollars. Should be an interesting diplomacy game to see if Washington is even able to convince Japan to restrict Iranian oil imports....

Regardless, this is the stupidity of Bush's cowboy diplomacy and Obama's kowtowing to Republicans coming home to roost. We are certainly going to be paying a lot for letting the man-child try to impress daddy and play war general.

Sovereignty of EU "nations" has been completely thrown out of the window, first by establishing the EU government and then by completely giving in to all of these nonsense US and UN driven deals.

Of-course with most of Europe being welfare states and not actually working for what they are consuming (and most of US being in the same position), the interests of the individuals and the sovereignty of nations are completely disregarded in order to provide the continuation of the unsustainable life styles that ar

pray tell me. if you say 'they are a hardliner state', you will find israel MUCH more hardliner than any other country on the planet. just listen to what liebermann says (external affairs minister of israel). you'll be dumbfounded. just watch what gets publicly spoken in one of their leading party assemblies. youll be appalled.

the signs that israel has nuclear capability is always dodged by all international agencies and governments. yet, iran gets the heat for less.

or maybe it is because only countries that are either in angloamerican or russian alliances are entitled to have nuclear weapons ?

For the same reason that we occasionally take drivers licenses or weapons permits away from people that have demonstrated an inability to use their fun toys in a responsible manner conducive to the safety of others. Do you have a problem with your neighbor having a small arsenal when he behaves like a responsible citizen? No. However, when he starts brandishing the weapons around and threatening your family you call the cops and have him dealt with.

Iran has expressed a repeated and rather vocal interest in destroying the US and Isreal. I happen to live in the US and so have a vested interested in our continued existence. No one gives a crap about countries like France having nukes because no one thinks France is crazy enough to destroy the world. We like to postulate about Russia's nukes, but in the end Russia also does not want to destroy the world because Russia likes living in the world. Iran, conversely, has stated multiple times that self-destruction is an acceptable end game provided they get to take us with them. If I thought Iran would play nice, I wouldn't have a problem with them arming themselves. Once they demonstrate the ability to behave like a responsible nation in the world community, they too can have the big weapons.

Oil is a fungible commodity. Which particular buyer will be buying depends only on the cost of delivery. If Iran's oil is being sold to Europe, that just means that it's cheaper to deliver it to Europe than it is to deliver it to Asia. Delivering it to the buyers to whom it is more expensive to deliver will do nothing but increase the world-wide cost of oil by introducing a less-than-optimal delivery cost into the overall delivery mechanism.

Iran is relatively independent and otherwise well connected locally and to other neighboring nations like China and India (check the main importers and exporters [wikipedia.org]). The rate would have little impact on Iran itself.

Loss of rial to USD means that the US traders do not need the currency, which is needed only to do the business with Iran. And there were very little business to begin with.

The EU is going to ban Iranian oil, fine. They are also proposing to ban Canadian oil, ok. But if you start alienating countries that have large reserves of oil, where the hell do you think you are going to get your oil from in the future? If Iran stops is nuclear programs under these sanctions or Canada finds more efficient less polluting ways of extracting oil from tar sands, then why would they return to doing business with the EU? There are larger markets then the EU out there that are not so finicky.

Not a week goes by that I don't hear about another stupid decision made by the EU in one shape or another which limits consumer rights and under the EU "protection", most EU countries are entering bankruptcy.

"return to doing business with the EU? "money. Why change to meet EU standards if you aren't going to be selling to the EU?

The reason their is a financial issue is because large financial institution abused their position. Those bankers must laugh all the way to..we the bank whenever someone blames 'regulations' and 'public workers' for the economic crisis.

Instead of helping Iran being more developed, better integrated with the rest of the world, so that a**holes like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not get elected, we do what?

All this high rhetoric about Iran is such a non-sense. The EU and US simply do not want Iran to become a major international player because they are very well positioned to also become very important player.

On a slow week-end I have read through all the Wikipedia material on Iran [wikipedia.org] and honestly the mention of what Iran needs (and it needs little) to become a superpower are all over the place. Embargoes would do little, only slow it down. Real change inside the Iran could happen when Iran becomes a superpower - but it seems our politicians are not in favor of it.

BTW, slow down of Iran's peaceful nuclear program will have an impact on us in oil/gas dependent countries. Oil and gas are major sources of energy in Iran [wikipedia.org], but efficiency of Iran's processing is very low. Nuclear program supposed to free up quite a lot of the gas and the oil and allow to increase export or simply save the resources instead of wasting them.

(Whoever wrote that obviously doesn't use their bike. I somehow spent £230 on cycling-related stuff in 2011 -- I keep a record of it, to justify being smug^W^W buying expensive toys with the money I save. Insurance renewal, new chain, new sprockets, brake pads, replacement waterproof trousers, better kickstand, 4 AA batteries for lights, one inner tube, fixed penalty notice (ahem)...)

Ohai. This is Slashdot. It's not "technology news", it's "news for nerds". The mistake is easy to make, but it is a mistake nevertheless. If you want "technology news" you can try Engadget or TechCrunch or something. Good luck.

Iranian oil production collapsed in 1980, and struggled back. Even with the massive investment they've made, their production is basically flat, and will remain so for about 5 more years when it goes into another decline. The collapse of 1980 was political in nature, not geological. The next downturn will not be as dramatic, but far more permanent.